Openly gay men face "significant" hiring
discrimination in several parts of the country, but there are wide differences
from state to state. That's the finding of a new, large-scale study, which also
found that employers in areas where anti-discrimination laws prohibit
discrimination based on sexual orientation are less likely to discriminate.

Additionally, the study found that employers are more likely
to discriminate when job descriptions emphasize "stereotypically male
heterosexual traits."

The findings come from "Pride and Prejudice: Employment
Discrimination Against Openly Gay Men in the United States," published in
the September issue of the American Journal of Sociology
.

The study was conducted by Andras Tilcsik, a researcher at
Harvard University, who sent out 1,769 pairs of fictitious resumes in response
to online job postings by private employers. The job advertisements were for
recent college graduates and covered five occupations (administrative
assistant, analyst, customer service representative, manager, sales
representative) across seven states (California, Florida, Nevada, New York,
Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas).

The resumes in each pair were of similar quality, differing
only enough to "avoid raising suspicion" that they were fictitious.

One resume in each pair stated that the candidate was
treasurer of a college gay and lesbian organization. He was given a leadership
role, rather than simple membership in the group, because the role required
financial and managerial skills, and justified mention on a resume. It would
thus be clear the candidate was gay – but employers would not see him as
"lacking business savvy" for including information about
"irrelevant" activities, according to the study.

The other resume stated that the applicant was treasurer of
a college progressive and socialist organization. Tilcsik explained that
because many people perceive LGBT organizations to have a liberal slant, if both
resumes implied liberal organizations, any difference in the responses would
not be because of an employer's political bias.

Overall, 11.5 percent of heterosexual "applicants"
received a callback for an interview, versus 7.2 percent of gay men, meaning
heterosexual men received over one-and-a-half times as many callbacks.
Heterosexual applicants would have to apply for fewer than nine jobs to get an
interview, whereas gay men would have to apply to almost 14.

"Until now," said Tilcsik, "the extent and
patterns of this kind of discrimination have not been systematically documented
on a large scale, across geographic areas."

Previous studies looked at less objective, self-reported
instances of hiring discrimination, were limited to a small sample, or were
conducted outside the United States. And some focused on wage differences,
which skeptics could attribute to differences in productivity rather than
discrimination.

M.V. Lee Badgett, director of the Center for Public Policy
and Administration at the University of Massachusetts Amherst and research
director of the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law, has authored
several previous studies of employment discrimination against lesbians and gay
men. Badgett said the most important aspect of Tilcsik's study is that "it
rules out differences in the gay and heterosexual applicants' skills and
experience by design, so the fact that gay applicants are much less likely to
be invited for an interview is hard to explain by anything other than
discrimination."

Different states, different findings

But the overall finding by Tilcsik was significantly
different from his findings in various states.

In New York, Pennsylvania, and California, the gap between
callbacks for the fictitious gay and heterosexual applicants was insignificant.

But in Texas, resumes of heterosexual men received more than
three times as many callbacks as those of gay men. Heterosexual men would need
to apply for only eight jobs to get an interview, versus 27 for gay men.

In Ohio, resumes of heterosexual men received over
two-and-a-half times as many callbacks, and in Florida, almost twice as many.

The number of job postings in Nevada during the study period
was too small to draw definite conclusions there, according to the report.

When employers were in cities, counties, or states without
laws prohibiting employment discrimination based on sexual orientation, gay men
received fewer than half the number of callbacks of heterosexual men. In areas with
such anti-discrimination laws, the gap was smaller but still significant
– gay men received three-quarters as many callbacks.

California, Nevada, and New York have statewide protections
against employment discrimination based on sexual orientation. Florida, Ohio,
Pennsylvania, and Texas do not, although they have some cities and counties
with such protections.

Tilcsik cautioned that it is hard to determine whether the
lower levels of discrimination were because of the anti-discrimination laws
themselves or because people in areas likely to adopt such laws had more positive
opinions about gay people to begin with.

Tilcsik did not look at whether specific employers had
corporate anti-discrimination policies. He explained in an interview that
getting accurate information on such policies can be difficult, especially for
small companies. And, he said, "previous research suggests that such
policies often have little effect."

Another key finding was that the discrimination was based
partly on "the personality traits that employers seek" and
stereotypical beliefs about gay men.

When job postings used traditional masculine traits like
"aggressive or assertive, decisive, or ambitious" to describe an
ideal candidate, heterosexual applicants received almost three times as many
callbacks as gay ones. When such traits were not part of the job posting,
heterosexual applicants received only about one-and-a-half times as many
callbacks.

"The discrimination documented in this study is partly
rooted in specific stereotypes and cannot be completely reduced to a general
antipathy against gay employees," said Tilcsik. It demonstrates the
"potentially powerful effect" of stereotypes on hiring decisions.

Badgett said Tilcsik's several findings are consistent with
previous research in showing "clear evidence of discrimination."

Tilcsik's study, she said, is also "good evidence"
that employers "are taking sexual orientation into account at an early
stage of the [hiring] process."

But Tilcsik noted that much more research remains to be done
on other parts of the LGBT spectrum, other stages of hiring and employment, and
"specific factors that might reduce the likelihood of discrimination"
such as anti-discrimination laws, public attitudes, and organizational
policies.

Tilcsik's is the first large-scale study to use the
objective paired resume approach to explore discrimination against any part of
the LGBT spectrum in the United States. Smaller and more subjective studies
have indicated that such discrimination exists for lesbians, bisexuals, and
transgender people as well.